Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Mobilization, annexation and nuclear weapons" video.

  1.  @HR_8035_YEA  I saw videos of people for both - for the war and for the mobilization.
    2
  2. This is why stock market in Moscow collapsed almost 10%. This is why Putin was avoiding it so long. It will be a big hit to the economy.
    2
  3.  @stutteringyak9492  what exchange, Ukraine has no nukes. Tactical nukes only effect area in limited way and detonating 50 to take care of troop concentrations / critical infrastructure would at most deal with some global warming (yay!). Remember people in Japan live in both cities nuked.
    2
  4. For 1, almost zero - why waste a nuke. Plus you would be condemned for it. For 2, right now I say 10% in the next 3 months. For 3 I say less then 1% - there is no need & nothing to be gained.
    1
  5. Zero.
    1
  6. Maybe - but I believe this is to show Ukraine that if they do not freeze the conflict he will annex half of it.
    1
  7.  @keithpalmer4547  LOL! Based on what? The fact soon they will be outnumbered? War ends when ether a) both sides are to tired of it and end it in the middle. b) one side gets smashed Since Russia is way too powerful it will not be the one smashed. so either Ukraine gets smashed or both sides get too tired and have a political solution. Neither of these are seen as victories for Ukraine. Also in 6 months Russian mobilized troops will be fully deployed and in 6 months it is Russia and her allies that are going to smash some Ukrainian butt.
    1
  8. That would assure nuclear strike by Putin - i.e. if I was Putin I would immediately strike with heavy nukes all possible areas - ensures total destruction of Ukrainian state.
    1
  9.  @gorillaguerillaDK  International law is only to keep little guys in check & threaten them with "international" courts. "resolutions we’ve signed and ratified regarding human rights " oh really, does that include ALL people or only these you like? Another hypocrite.
    1
  10.  @gorillaguerillaDK  So what about Russians that live in Donbass and Crimea where they have majority and will be heavily discriminated against by Ukrainians? What about them? Why should Ukraine get a land where the Ukrainians are not majority? Should we return Kosovo to Serbia then? What about Taiwan - guess mainland has a point? What about Texas? Etc.
    1
  11.  @gorillaguerillaDK  "If the areas of Ukraine where there's a high percentage of ethnic Russians wanted to succeed, then there's actually legal procedures to be followed!" no there are no legal procedures that do not involve violence. The legal procedure is called war of independence. It is legal under UN. I.e. under UN law people have the right to decide their future. Oh and who founded Azov and friends? Mermaids? Oh and whom burned Russian ethic minority in Odessa - again - angles? Or demons? Here and all be it known that annexation of the land by US of the British crown is determined to be illegal. LOL. Oh so is Kosovo legal or illegal, is Taiwan legal or illegal - you did not answer - I assume you have no answer. This all comes down to freedom. US people fought the British in totally illegal insurrection to gain their freedom. But as with Vietnam, now with Donbass, US says clearly that freedom is only for US people not for anyone else that does not align with US. That is it. Total hypocrisy. Why you deny people of Donbass their freedom? What did they do to you? Why you deny their right to chose? Don't believe in freedom huh? The only country on earth that I know of which seems at least on paper to offer right of separation is Canada. In Canada there are laws governing secession of provinces. Never yet tested, but in theory will of the people should be respected. Even UK is not that free as Scotland wanting 2nd referendum due to UK leaving EU is seen as a NO! You can have a referendum as long as your vote is "correct one". So much for your BS about freedom - freedom is a tree that is nourished with the blood of patriots - there is not peaceful process - you need to fight for your freedom. Interestingly Ukraine could have kept Donbass if they did similar laws as Canada did with Quebec. But they refused!
    1
  12. With multiple waves of mobilization victory is assured.
    1
  13. Russia is probably calling more then 500k troops. The 300k is for public. No issues with weapons. No issues with troops. No issues with logistics. Who ever though that weapons are an issue for reds??? Why logistics? Come on - rail network is bigger then in WWII and troops numbers are much lower! Ukraine lost the war. Now we are seeing how much the actual loss will be. Current main issue for Russia is that mobilization is stressing administration - huge lineups of people called in to fight! Putin knows there will not be a quick win as it takes time to use all mobilized soldiers - at least two months till Russia can employ them and probably at least another month before they can do an offensive.
    1
  14.  @keithmorgan3295  But it is HONEST. Its TRUE. You may bend into a pretzel and it still will be true. Accept it as truth. Why pp imagine things?
    1
  15. Fight to last Ukrainian?
    1
  16. I think there is little exit now for Ukraine - they should have negotiated their way out after first 30 days or better yet simply fulfilled Minsk agreement and left Crimea question open. No war, Donbass back in Ukraine, Crimea question open. Excellent. It is now clear that chances of Putin loosing power or pp like him are far lesser then that of Zielinski.
    1
  17.  @ImperialDiecast  What is clear since 2014 that the will of the Russians is equally strong and will not break - for 10 or 20 or 30 more years. On Russian side its same way - its the will of the people, not one or two or ten men.
    1
  18.  @ImperialDiecast  But it is their country in their view. So the will of the people of Russia in Russia. A country is nothing without people - its just a concept. People make a country not country makes the people. Thus people living in these areas should be able to decide. Plain and simple. Your view is totally hypocritical - you view yourself as someone living in democracy - but applying same freedoms to others is a crime! After WWI land was divided by the will of the people on that land - league of nations did referendums and based on these and some usual interference from the west land was divided among countries. Same concept was totally omitted after fall of Soviet Union and this is causing dozens of small and some large wars.
    1
  19.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  Sure there are - you do know Poland got Slask that way, do you? Or history is no longer "hot" in Polish schools? Do you need more sources or what? Or maybe you are so strong headed you want to give Slask back to Germany? What Chinese parts of RF - there are no areas of Russian federation - including these you imply they gained from China - where it just happens that ethnically they are... 95% Russian? It would be similar to point out that Alaska should maybe go back to RF - after all same rules apply. Maybe with the exception that Alaska is far more Russian today then Amur is Chinese - no really, check it out!
    1
  20.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  I did answer the question about former Chinese territories. I said it was a transfer similar to Alaska or Spanish territories. What else do you want me to say? At all three transfers the owner knew that their hold on the land was weak and it would be better to give them away vs. fight a loosing war over them. Neither Russia, Spain or China are questioning the transfers.
    1
  21. Why?
    1
  22. Well, as per Russia it will be Russian. New border with Ukraine is of course subject to discussion. But I doubt the initial deal Ukraine got is still on the table. I.e. they will loose more then Crimea and Donbass.
    1
  23.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  They were gained in same way US gained Alaska or US gained Spanish possessions in NA. Incidentally roughly at similar historical period.
    1
  24.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States It outlines growth of US - it has good part about what US gained from Spain via acquisition and via combat. Early US history is expansion in not exactly friendly way - its pure force. Same as everyone else. Some of this force was "purchases" - like I hold a gun to your head, point at a paper and say, look, give me all your land for a dollar or I spent a cent on a bullet. To this day US occupies Gautama Bay in Cuba and pays "rent" of less then month rental of an average apartment ;)
    1
  25.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  Should it? I been to Alaska - through they did keep their Russian heritage (i.e. preserved historical sites etc.) they are like close to 100% American. There is very tiny Russian presence there. So should we now disconnect a totally American state and attach it to Russia? I bet people of Alaska want to stay in US - they probably do not even want to join Canada. My view is people over state - state is made of will of the people - it is a construct. It should not override people. Thus people should decide their fate not some state.
    1
  26. What???
    1
  27. This is why I told pp from Russia to volunteer - and this is why volunteering contracts are only max 6 months long! Also mobilized troops get around 4000 USD as a starting bonus.
    1
  28. There was no Ukraine or Ukrainian as a concept in times of Catharine the Great - a German.
    1
  29.  @ImperialDiecast  Crimean Tatars are also known as Golden Horde. They are closely related to Volga Tatars which are in Russia. Most Tatars - which is Turkic ethnic group are Russians - like 90%. Cossacks are nomadic or semi nomadic people that occupied (occupy) lands between great rivers on current plains of Ukraine and Russia. Currently they are on Russian side of the conflict - fun fact, the Krasny Liman city is defended against Ukrainian troops by Cossack regiment.
    1
  30. If Russian army suffers heavy losses using tactical nukes for enemy troops concentrations as well as things such as large bridges (one near Odessa) or conventional power plants, dams, etc. seems reasonable. I do see use of nukes if the west escalates - for example, delivery of long range weaponry to Ukraine now may tip the balance of Putin's decision & get him to escalate to nuke use.
    1
  31. So essentially you are saying Russia has won - which I agree with.
    1
  32. Well, Russia has been stingy with air support. Maybe that will change.
    1
  33. Well, here we will see one side crushed at great cost. Well, they picked a comic, they get a tragedy.
    1
  34. No - at once and probably more then 300k.
    1
  35. International law states that people have the right to decide their future. The country from which territory is annexed does not have to accept such choice nor do have others. This does not change annexation. See Golan Heights. See Kosovo. Etc.
    1
  36.  @KasumiRINA  Oh, US did just that - but I guess different laws apply to US. One has to remember that US gained Hawaii through conquest, they invaded, overthrew by force of arms local government and then annexed the territory. So I guess US state of Hawaii is under occupation. There are many more examples.
    1
  37.  @gorillaguerillaDK  Annexation was always "illegal" - its not like annexing by force was ever right! Finally, US controls Kosovo - it has a huge base there and rules over the territory supreme - so I guess I have more recent example. If you do not like that example, we have plenty of examples from say... Israel. Oh, wait, its OK, they are under US protection. Cannot count that. What about India - Pakistan? Good enough? What you are referring to is ""All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" I guess US is guilty here more then sin itself. I mean they just broken this in like ... all of Middle east or is it only like 90% of it? So in that spirit you agree that US should have done nothing when Kosovo crisis was happening and should never interfere in Taiwan, correct? Or are you a hypocrite as everyone else pro US / UA?
    1
  38.  @gorillaguerillaDK  It was never legal - rape may not have been codified everywhere till somewhat recently but that did not exactly make it legal. Besides, US has not problems ignoring these laws or not even signing up to enforce.
    1
  39.  @gorillaguerillaDK  Oh, so Serbs can take Kosovo back, correct? So you are either a) Kosovo is a country or b) its part of Serbia, which one is it and why? Taiwan same deal - state your stance.
    1
  40.  @gorillaguerillaDK  Unless you mean rape in marriage - i.e. supposal rape or woman on woman (maybe), then there are no known to me countries that allow rape - i.e. there is no place where a man can rape a woman and its not a crime. Also there were no know to me countries where it was legal until recently - for example in two largest religions it has been illegal from their start - as it is illegal in Judaism. You constantly point out that it was OK for everyone to do X as it was still not illegal - but say it is illegal now. So your argument is that rape was totally cool if it was done in the past. Great.
    1
  41.  @gorillaguerillaDK  Still you are dodging your stance on Kosovo and Taiwan. According to international law Serbia has then full legal right to march in there, pacify the rebels and connect rebel province by force of arms. Correct? According to the same law China mainland has full rights to Taiwan. Are you also fully condemning EU and US in their support of illegal Kosovo and illegal Taiwan? Or are you just against illegal Russia?
    1